Female rules entailing expulsion?

[Kaneki]

I'm sure this has been brought up tons of times but I'm not sure where to look. It's stuff like this that really throws me off. Were these rules put in place close to the time of the Buddha's death? I'm sure there's no way of knowing. I just can't comprehend in any way why these rules shouldn't apply to men as well? Likelihood of the circumstances for both men and women aside, if I imagine both a man and a woman under scrutiny from the Sangha over an action regarding the last 4 rules of expulsion for women, and consider the man being let off the hook and woman in each situation told she does not deserve the privileges of men regarding these rules, I feel very upset.

It's not just this, other things such as supramundane powers as well. Everytime I've asked a question about such things the best answer anyone can give me leaves me with a "I guess I can go along with that for now" feeling. I've experienced this with Christianity in my childhood, nobody really knows because not a man on this earth can make logical sense of these instances, but nobody wants to say "I don't know, it makes no sense to me either" so they come up with the best answer they can and everybody mutually agrees to leave it at that and put it aside.

To those of you who hold faith in the logic of the vinaya. Why do you feel that a man should not be held subject to these 4 rules upon breaking them while women should?

5. Should any bhikkhunī, lusting, consent to a lusting man's rubbing, rubbing up against, taking hold of, touching, or fondling (her) below the collar-bone and above the circle of the knees, she also is defeated and no longer in affiliation for being "one above the circle of the knees." [See Bhikkhus' Saṅghādisesa 2]

6. Should any bhikkhunī, knowing that (another) bhikkhunī has fallen into an act (entailing) defeat, neither accuse her herself nor inform the group, and then — whether she (the other bhikkhunī) is still alive or has died, has been expelled or gone over to another sect — she (this bhikkhunī) should say, "Even before, ladies, I knew of this bhikkhunī that 'This sister is of such-and-such a sort,' and I didn't accuse her myself nor did I inform the group," then she also is defeated and no longer in affiliation for being "one who concealed a fault." [See Bhikkhus' Pācittiya 64]

7. Should any bhikkhunī follow a bhikkhu who has been suspended by a united Community (of bhikkhus) in line with the Dhamma, in line with the Vinaya, in line with the teacher's instructions, and who is disrespectful, has not made amends, has broken off his friendship (with the bhikkhus), the bhikkhunīs are to admonish her thus: "Lady, that bhikkhu has been suspended by a united Community in line with the Dhamma, in line with the Vinaya, in line with the teacher's instructions. He is disrespectful, he has not made amends, he has broken off his friendship. Do not follow him, lady."

And should that bhikkhunī, thus admonished by the bhikkhunīs, persist as before, the bhikkhunīs are to rebuke her up to three times for the sake of relinquishing that. If while being rebuked up to three times she relinquishes that, that is good. If she does not relinquish that, then she also is defeated and no longer in affiliation for being "a follower of a suspended (bhikkhuī)." (§¶•) [1]

8. Should any bhikkhunī, lusting, consent to a lusting man's taking hold of her hand or touching the edge of her outer robe, or should she stand with him or converse with him or go to a rendezvous with him, or should she consent to his approaching her, or should she enter a hidden place with him, or should she dispose her body to him — (any of these) for the purpose of that unrighteous act (Comm: physical contact) — then she also is defeated and no longer in affiliation for "(any of) eight grounds." (§)

- Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ti.html#pr

[cooran]

These are the rules relating to Bhikkhus:

http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With metta,
Chris

[SarathW]

As far as I am concern the ultimate objective of becoming a monk is to attain Nibbana.
When you attain Nibbana all these trivial matters becomes no relevance.

[Pinetree]

To my knowledge, vinaya rules were created on a step by step basis, to deal with practical matters arising in the early sangha.

So do you have a different opinion on what a women's erogenous zones are than what is inferred from the vinaya ?

[pilgrim]

If the rules are there, then liking or disliking it will not change the fact. If one is not a bhikkhuni, it is irrelevant to you. The skillful thing to do, if one is a bhikkhuni, is not to break them.

[daverupa]

To those of you who hold faith in the logic of the vinaya. Why do you feel that a man should not be held subject to these 4 rules upon breaking them while women should?

If you approach the texts with a critical, historical perspective, things are actually not so difficult:

By way of foreword, allow me to propose that in approaching the scriptures of the Pāli canon for guidance and orientation, we need to be aware of the fact that this material is the final product of a prolonged period of oral transmission and thus may not always fully reflect the original.

The possibility cannot a priori be excluded that views, which were not part of the original delivery of a discourse or a rule, could have influenced the canonical material as we have it now. This does not mean that the Pāli canon can no longer provide guidance and orientation. But it does mean that during the centuries of oral transmission, material that at first perhaps arouse in the form of a commentary (where the reciters would have felt free to express personal opinions) could have become part of what now is considered canonical.

Practically speaking, this means that instead of taking isolated passages on their own as invariably true, what is required is an awareness of the overall thrust of the canonical scriptures on a particular theme.

The Buddhist version of "Biblical Literalism" is a very real danger, causing all sorts of trouble, it seems to me. For example:

If the rules are there, then liking or disliking it will not change the fact. If one is not a bhikkhuni, it is irrelevant to you. The skillful thing to do, if one is a bhikkhuni, is not to break them.

Hardly:

Now quite probably the Buddha adjusted to prevalent customs in ancient India – in wider society as well as in parallel traditions like the Jain order, which appears to already have had an order of nuns – by placing nuns in second position vis-à-vis monks. However, such positioning would have been dictated by circumstance, not being an expression of a principle endorsement of gender discrimination.

The claim that misogyny is hardwired into the Dhamma would be laughable if it didn't have such painful consequences in the real world. This sort of cultural kowtow is an altogether illegitimate move, putting transitory social values ahead of the akaliko Dhamma.

[Sea Turtle]

If the rules are there, then liking or disliking it will not change the fact. If one is not a bhikkhuni, it is irrelevant to you. The skillful thing to do, if one is a bhikkhuni, is not to break them.

This is a rather narrow view and even dismissive to the concern raised in the OP.

To those of you who hold faith in the logic of the vinaya. Why do you feel that a man should not be held subject to these 4 rules upon breaking them while women should?

If you approach the texts with a critical, historical perspective, things are actually not so difficult:

By way of foreword, allow me to propose that in approaching the scriptures of the Pāli canon for guidance and orientation, we need to be aware of the fact that this material is the final product of a prolonged period of oral transmission and thus may not always fully reflect the original.

The possibility cannot a priori be excluded that views, which were not part of the original delivery of a discourse or a rule, could have influenced the canonical material as we have it now. This does not mean that the Pāli canon can no longer provide guidance and orientation. But it does mean that during the centuries of oral transmission, material that at first perhaps arouse in the form of a commentary (where the reciters would have felt free to express personal opinions) could have become part of what now is considered canonical.

Practically speaking, this means that instead of taking isolated passages on their own as invariably true, what is required is an awareness of the overall thrust of the canonical scriptures on a particular theme.

The Buddhist version of "Biblical Literalism" is a very real danger, causing all sorts of trouble, it seems to me. For example:

If the rules are there, then liking or disliking it will not change the fact. If one is not a bhikkhuni, it is irrelevant to you. The skillful thing to do, if one is a bhikkhuni, is not to break them.

Hardly:

Now quite probably the Buddha adjusted to prevalent customs in ancient India – in wider society as well as in parallel traditions like the Jain order, which appears to already have had an order of nuns – by placing nuns in second position vis-à-vis monks. However, such positioning would have been dictated by circumstance, not being an expression of a principle endorsement of gender discrimination.

The claim that misogyny is hardwired into the Dhamma would be laughable if it didn't have such painful consequences in the real world. This sort of cultural kowtow is an altogether illegitimate move, putting transitory social values ahead of the akaliko Dhamma.

Thank you, Dave, for engaging with the points raised in the OP and for providing relevant excerpts from the Venerable Anālayo's work to further elucidate.

[samseva]

You might want to familiarize yourself with how the rules and the bhikkhunī Sangha came about.
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ggo-e.html

The monastic Sangha was initially a very large number of men, for whatever reasons that might have been. When you take such a large number of male monastics and you decide to form a Sangha of female monastics, many things can happen, mostly of sexual nature. That is how humans are; we are basically half animal and things can be even worse when you are dealing with celibacy.

With such drastic changes as creating an order of bhikkhunīs, even though the Buddha refused to do so multiple times, he then said that having done so would, sadly, it would have a drastic effect on the continuation of the ordained Sangha. This might be perceived as sexism, but it is just fact that when you put men and women together, things happen.

Ānanda, if women had not obtained the going forth from the house life into homelessness in the Dhamma and Discipline declared by the Perfect One, the holy life would have lasted long, the holy life would have lasted a thousand years. But now, since women have obtained it, the holy life will not last long, the holy life will last only five hundred years.
— Vin. Cv. 10:1 (Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu)

With such huge complications, the Buddha did all he could to minimize the impact this could have, so he created rules that bhukkhunīs needed to follow if they were to be allowed to be ordained.

However, even if there wouldn't even have an affect on the continuation of the Sangha, having (even many) extra rules due to creating a whole new order of monastics, of the opposite sex, would clearly be an obvious requirement.

[daverupa]

You might want to familiarize yourself with how the rules and the bhikkhunī Sangha came about.

Yeah, about the two sources of this story in the Pali there is a useful footnote from Bodhi, via Brasington, about anachronisms and so on:

Several of these [Bhikkhuni Patimokkha] rules are already included among the garudhammas. Thus garudhammas 2, 3, 4, and 7 correspond to Bhikkhuni Pacittiyas 56, 59, 57, and 52. Garudhamma 6 has counterparts in Bhikkhuni Pacittiyas 63 and 64. The fact that the background stories to these rules show them originating at different points in the early history of the Bhikkhuni Sangha casts doubt on the historicity of the present account, which shows the eight garudhammas being laid down at the very beginning of the Bhikkhuni Sangha.

Then we have this .pdf from Analayo:

Now, reconstruction of historical events based on purely textual accounts is certainly hazardous. Nevertheless, based on what can be culled from the Madhyama-āgama discourse in comparison with the other versions, it seems possible to arrive at a coherent narrative of the account of the foundation of the order of nuns. A sketch of such a version would be more or less like this:

Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī requests permission for women to go forth, which the Buddha refuses because conditions are not yet suitable for such a move, as her living the holy life in celibacy might not last long if she were to become a homeless wanderer. Therefore, he tells her that she should better live a celibate life in the more protected environment at home, having cut off her hair and put on robes.

Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and a group of women follow this suggestion and shave off their hair and put on robes. After the Buddha has left, they decide to follow him, thereby proving their willingness to brave the conditions of a homeless life. On witnessing their keenness and ability to face the difficulties of a homeless life, or else on being informed of it, the Buddha gives them permission to join the order.

A bit different than Pali Tradition would have it.

---

Finally:

...even though the Buddha refused to do so multiple times, he then said that having done so would, sadly, it would have a drastic effect on the continuation of the ordained Sangha...

...and again we have Analayo:

The problem of associating the very existence of the bhikkhunī order with an overall decline of the Dharma or the Buddha’s dispensation is not only that it attributes to the Buddha a prediction that has not come true, but also that it stands in direct opposition to the passages surveyed above, which clearly see the bhikkhunīs as an integral part of the Buddha’s dispensation.

So. Hmm.

[samseva]

...

I would have to look into Ven. Anālayo's publication, although all that isn't that convincing to completely dismiss everything. With the rest, Brasington's argument of Ānanda being only a teenager makes no sense. With the Bhikkhu Bodhi quote, I'm not quite sure what is being described. The bhikkhunī Pātimokkha rules simply came after the Garudhammas and were probably created from these. I don't really understand what the argument is. I would need to look at the origin stories though.

[Aloka]

Something else that's definately worth reading is Bhikkhu Analayo's "The Four Assemblies and Theravada Buddhism"

Introduction

In this paper I examine two significant developments in the Theravada tradition from the viewpoint of the Pali canonical
teaching that the four assemblies - bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, male lay disciples,and female lay disciples - are the necessary foundation for the Buddha's teaching to thrive. These two developments are the revival of lay meditation and the revival of bhikkhuni ordination.

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... mblies.pdf

[samseva]

Simply for clarification (although I am sure that probably no one thought negatively of this), I wansn't necassarily presenting an opinion but simply the orthodox understanding of the origin of the order and the rules (and the way our defiled mind works regarding sensuality). I have no negative intentions or opinions regarding the order of bhikkhunīs at all. In fact, I don't really have an opinion, I am neither for or against, since I don't consider that I've researched enough on the matter.